Great Basin Naturalist
Volume 14
Number 3 – Number 4
Article 5
12-30-1954
A note to commemorate the one-hundredth
anniversary of Koch's Die Pflanzenläuse
F. C. Hottes
Grand Junction, Colorado
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn
Recommended Citation
Hottes, F. C. (1954) "A note to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of Koch's Die Pflanzenläuse," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol.
14: No. 3, Article 5.
Available at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol14/iss3/5
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
A NOTE TO COMMEMORATE THE ONE-HUNDREDTH
ANNIVERSARY OF KOCH'S DIE PFLANZENLAUSE
HOTTES
F. C.
Grand Junction, Colorado
Since 1954 marked the one-hundredth anniversary of the puband since 1957 will mark the one-hundredth
lication of the first Heft,
anniversary of the printing of the ninth and last Heft, and the publication of the work as a whole, of Koch's Die Pflanzenlause, perhaps
it is
fitting that
we review
briefly the
was published. Furthermore
I
believe
new
manner
I
in which this work
have discovered something
work, and although trivial,
concerning the publication of this
I offer it herewith, to commemorate the oneit of interest.
hundredth anniversary of the publication of this work which had
such a profound influence on Aphid Taxonomy.
believe
Aphid Taxonomists are aware
Die Pflanzenlause was originally published
in nine parts or Heften. Few in America, surely have access to the
volume thus published. It appears to be terribly scarce even in
Europe, where only a few copies appear to have been published.
Even the volume printed in 1857, as a whole is rare and high priced.
It is this volume which most American Aphid Taxonomists are
familiar with. Its contents are the same, as that of the volume issued
in parts, bound volumes of which are apt not to show evidence of
interrupted publication, only the first part being indicated.
I
suspect that few of the younger
of the fact that Koch's
new genera and species were described
important to know the date of publication
of each Heft, so that the new forms may be associated with the date
of issue, and not the date of the completed work, as is so often done.
Because a number of
in the parts as issued,
it is
Inasmuch as Hagen, 1862, Horn and Schenkling, 1928, and
Borner, 1952, are either not clear, accurate or complete in their
reference to the publication of the various Heften, and because none
work as a whole in 1857, a review
be of value to younger workers, despite the fact that my Old
Mentor Dr. O. W. Oestlund covered much of the same material in
a paper published in Entomological News in 1910. The paper, also
partly obscured by time deserves to be better known. Oestlund
refer to the publication of the
may
gives the dates
in 1854.
Heft
and pages
1,
pp
1-8
for the
and
Heften as follows: "Parts 1-4 issued
Heft II pp 37-72, Heft III pp 73-
1-36,
79
The Great Basin Naturalist
80
F. c.
HOTTEs
Vol.
XIV, Nos. 3-4
100, Heft IV pp 101-134. Parts 5-7 were issued in 1855. Heft V
pp 135-166, Heft VI pp 167-196, Heft VII pp 197-236. Parts VIII
and IX were issued in 1857. Heft VIII pp 237-274, Heft IX pp 275-
336.
We
of this generation, because we are more apt to have access
volume issued in 1857 as a whole, are likely to learn that the
original volume was issued in nine parts on page 328 in a section
written by J. H. Kaltenbach. This is also found on page 329 (if
numbered) of part nine. Dr. Oestlund states that the plates issued
with the Heften are superior to those issued with the volume published in 1857. I have the volume Dr. Oestlund had, before me, and
one other consisting of eight parts, and the plates for the same. I
agree with the observation made by Dr. Oestlund. The plates issued
to the
The superiority lies largely in the
manner in which small details of color and pulverulence are shown.
The 1857 copies showing pulverulence poorely, if at all. I have
with the Heften are superior.
seen the plates of four volumes, they, as
plates,
is
have one thing in common. They
for the plates issued with the Heften.
true of most
differ.
This
hand colored
is
true even
Dr. Oestlund further states,
"The number
of copies distributed in parts was probably small and
on the completion of the work in 1857 the greater part of the edition
was united into one with a new title page dated Niirnberg, 1857,
in which condition most of the copies now to be had are found."
Evidence
shall
I
dicts this statement.
differs
from the
now
and believe to be new, contripage mentioned by Dr. Oestlund
page of the volume issued as a whole in 1857
present,
The new
title
title
name of
side. The
not only in style of print, and size of print but carries the
the publisher, and the name of the printer on the reverse
names of the publisher and the printer are absent on the
of the
volume printed
When
one
is
title
page
in 1857.
fortunate enough to be able to compare a volume
issued in Heften with a
volume issued complete, and
I
have been
fortunate to be able to compare two of each, other differences be-
come apparent. For example, the
of the various
the volume as a
style of type used in the printing
from the style of type used in printing
whole. Although there is a great resemblance be-
Heften
differs
tween the two styles of type, the type used in the printing of the
Heften is somewhat bolder, it also differs slightly in size. Words
printed in italics, such as some specific names are also in a different
type in the two editions. Names of genera and species although
koch's die pflanzenlause
Dec. 30, 1954
81
printed in the same style of type, are printed in different
This
sizes.
shown on page 275. There is a striking difference between the two issues, except in part nine, where an asterisk is used.
This may be noted by comparing page one of Heft one and page one
of the 1857 issue. That used in the Ileften is made up of six individual parts, that in the 1857 issue has the parts united by stems. Commas in the Heften are faint, and the tail rather thin and curved,
those in the 1857 work are thicker, and have the tail less curved.
Although I suspect that the work issued in 1857 was set into type
from the printed pages of the Heften, the word content of given
lines is not always the same. In fact the word content of a given
page may differ by three or four words, or in the case of page 328
of Heft nine where this is found page 327. In no case is the word
content of a given page enough to change the page of the description
of a new genus or species. Some pages have line content of the two
editions the same, this is well illustrated by the first two or three
pages of Heft nine. The capital letter Q used in the two editions
is
strikingly
is
not the same, that used on page 227 of Heft VII has the bar under
the O, that used on page 227 of the 1857 edition has the bar across the
0. I found only one feature which may be viewed as a typographi-
The
volume printed in 1857
such is present in Heft VIII of the same page.
Because the paragraph on page 328 of Heft nine is printed on
the botton of page 327 of the 1857 edition, the remaining pages of
cal error.
figure 345 on page 270 of the
lacks a period after
it,
and index are not the same. Furthennore, the species and
listed on the second and following pages of the index are not
the same in the two editions. Nor has the 1857 edition the announcement of books for sale on page 336 (if numbered).
text
genera
Therefore I think the volume issued in 1857 as a whole, should
be thought of as a reprint edition, and not as an equal to the volume
issued in parts.
technical
Furthermore
we might
in the 1857
volume
I
suspect that
if
we wanted
to
regard the genera and species indicated as
as
homonyms and synonyms
be
new
of those described
in the Heften.
After a time lapse of a hundred years, speculation as to the
new resetting of type for the volume issued
in 1857 is rather risky. One suspects that the printer could not
reason for a complete
afford to keep such a quantity of type idle for a period of two or
three years. Hence after the Heften were in print, the plates from
which they were printed were reduced
could be reused.
It is
to type,
so that the type
strange, however, that parts VIII
and IX both
The Great Basin Naturalist
82
F. c.
HOTTEs
issued in 1857 should have to be reset.
demand
for the
work than
hence the reprint
first
edition.
in the printing of the
two
Vol.
XIV, Nos. 3-4
Perhaps there was a greater
contracted for, in the form of Heften,
The
fact that different type
editions, first suggested to
me
was used
that dif-
ferent printers were involved.
Hans
Sachtleben, Director of the Deutsches Entomologisches
has kindly supplied me with the following additional information. Their volume of Koch's work which was issued in Heften,
has the covers of all except the nineth Heft bound in. The cover of
the eighth Heft carries the date 1856.
Dr.
Institut,
This Heft should therefore date from 1856 and not 1857. The
genera Cladobius, Toxoptera and Pachypappa were described in
this Heft, and should therefore date from 1856 and not 1857. Only
the genera Toxoptera and Pachypappa are good, the name Cladobius
was preoccupied. Borner, 1930 gives the date of these genera as 1856.
Dr. Sachtleben sends the following information which all Aphid
Taxonomists will find of interest. He states that the Museum of
which he is Director has possession of many of the original drawings
of Koch.